It is only insofar as someone satisfies the conditions for rendering him or herself vulnerable to dialectical refutation that that person can come to know whether and what he or she knows.
—Alasdair MacIntyre
The inner willingness which is not closed against even the most unpleasant truth, which is really free from bias, ready to make friends with things, open to the proof of all objective existence, not looking at things through a colored lens that allows only such things to pass into the understanding as do not offend our pride and self-complacency
—Dietrich von Hildebrand
Luisa Picarretta, who died in 1947, is a Servant of God, declared by the Church in 2005. Saint Padre Pio knew her. He would say to the people of Corato who went to San Giovanni Rotondo: “What have you come here for? You have Luisa, go to her.” At around the age of fourteen, Luisa began to experience visions and apparitions of Jesus and Mary along with physical suffering. On one occasion, Jesus placed the crown of thorns upon her head causing her to lose consciousness and the ability to eat for two or three days. That developed into the mystical phenomenon whereby Luisa began to live on the Eucharist alone as her “daily bread.” Whenever she was forced under obedience by her confessor to eat, she was never able to digest the food, which came out minutes later, intact and fresh, as if it had never been eaten. She lived for decades on the Eucharist alone. Her 36 volumes of writings, dictated to her by Jesus Christ Himself, have been approved by the Church, with no fewer than 19 nihil obstats from a canonized saint, St. Hannibal di Francia. Her teachings are meant for our times, these last times: the necessity of absolute obedience to God’s will even to the level of “Living in the Divine Will.” Through Luisa, Jesus tells us that God has enabled this new level of holiness by opening the floodgates of Grace at a level of abundance and intensity unknown in the whole history of the Church. Here’s one of the best and most clear explanations of this:
Father James Mawdsley is a traditionalist Catholic priest who writes and speaks about the evils of Zionism and the urgency of the conversion of the Jews, both for the renewal of the Church from its apostasy and the rescuing of the world from hell on earth. He heroically defied the plandemic lies and was punished for doing so by his own “traditionally Catholic” religious order. This is a priest who recognizes the evil of Jorge Bergoglio, the modernism that has taken over the Vatican and seduced most of the Bishops of the Catholic Church, and the beauty and supremacy of the Latin Mass. This is also a priest who has recently recorded a video in which he insists—with absolute certainty—that Luisa’s writings are “a scream from hell.”
The law of excluded middle requires us to choose between these two antithetical judgments. Both can’t be right. One of these Catholics is promoting evil as good; Fr. Mawdsley thinks Luisa and her followers are doing this. One is promoting good as evil; those who love Luisa think that Fr. Mawdsley is doing this. If Luisa is right, then Fr. Mawdsley and his followers are sinning against the Holy Spirit, the sin of calling what is supernaturally good diabolically evil, the sin that the Pharisees committed when they deemed Jesus, the Good Incarnate, to be evil. If Fr. Mawdsley is right, then Luisa and her devotees are calling what is diabolically evil supernaturally good, which is also the sin against the Holy Spirit. It is “the unforgivable sin”:
Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matt. 12:31–32)
If a sin can be called unforgivable, it must be a sin the essential character of which is to preclude repentance. What sin could do this? What sin could make one absolutely unwilling to repent, completely unwilling to admit one is wrong? “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1. John 1:8). But what could possibly cause someone to make this sort of judgment about oneself?
Fr. Mawdsley says, and repeats it often in his videos, that he is certain that Luisa’s teachings are diabolical. He is certain that they are evil. I have provided him with an abundance of reasons, including authoritative declarations from the Church’s Magisterium, why his interpretations are, at best, debatable, and, at worst, plainly wrong. But he has only doubled down on his condemnations as if all these explanations and interpretations didn’t exist, or just not even worthy of his attention. Nowhere in his videos does he state or give any impression that he is open to the possibility that he is mistaken. No, he is certain, as certain as he could possibly be, as if he were dealing with a defined dogma of the Catholic Faith about which there is and can be no doubt. For Fr. Mawdsley, the evil of Luisa’s writings is plain and indubitable, and it is not accidental—it’s a scream from hell—on the same level as the evil of the satanic bible or the communist manifesto or the doctrines of Freemasonry and the Jewish Kabbalah—but much worse because the main speaker in Luisa’ writings is purported to be Jesus Christ Himself.
One would think that the Catholic orthodoxy of a given set of spiritual writings, let alone whether they are dictated by Satan, shouldn’t have to be determined for and all by oneself. Isn’t that what the Church is for? Well, yes. The Church has officially approved Luisa’s writings. She has declared her to be a Servant of God, not to mention that those volumes attacked by Mawdsley were already approved by Saint Hannibal di Francia (and his archbishop). As O’Connor remarks, “Who is more worthy of trust on this matter: a priest who was appointed by the Church to be Luisa’s spiritual director, knew her well, heard her confessions, read (& approved) her volumes in their own original language, was appointed to be her censor librorum… and was later canonized as a saint! ….. or, on the other hand, some priest a hundred years later, who has clearly read only a minuscule portion of Luisa’s writings, (and only a translation at that), and who has no mandate from the Church to render a judgment here?” So why is Fr. Mawdsely not deferring to the Church’s authority here?
The answer, I think, resides in when Luisa was declared a Servant of God, 1994. That year comes after the Second Vatican Council, in case you didn’t know. According to traditionalist Catholicism, one shouldn’t trust any Churchman, Church decision, or Church teaching after 1962 (or is it 1958?) In the words of a traditionalist colleague of mine (who will probably no longer be such due to my critique of Fr. Mawdsley): “I don't trust or follow anything after the Second Vatican Council and all my research has led me to conclude that all the post-conciliar popes were, to a greater or lesser degree, traitors to the Catholic Faith, not least for refusing to safeguard the Deposit of Faith and take action against the blatant heresies of numerous bishops and priests that consumed so many of the faithful and wrought such destruction to the Holy Catholic Church.” So there you have it. It means nothing that the Church declared Luisa a Servant of God because, well, it wasn’t really the Church that did so. If she had been declared such in, say, 1950, that would be a different story. Oh, and the same goes for St. Faustina (we know all about John Paul II’s Polish bias) and the Divine Mercy, which is obviously just the Vatican II counterchurch’s counterfeit of the Sacred Heart. God is a God of judgment! Stay away from the Divine Mercy—it’s from the Devil!
But as readers of this substack know, I don’t trust Jorge Bergoglio, a.k.a. Pope Francis. I think he believes in and promotes serious doctrinal and moral error. I am not even sure he is the Pope. I also share Mawdsley’s criticisms of the Novus Ordo liturgy and his upholding of the traditional teaching of the Church on the inexorable and perpetual (until their mass conversion in the end days) enmity of the Jews for Jesus Christ and Christian civilization (not all Jews, of course, but “the Jews” in the sense in which St. John identified them in his Gospel), as well as the post-Vatican II seeming repudiation, or at least the complete ignoring, of this clear biblical teaching. How can I then criticize Fr. Mawdsley for his suspicions of John Paul II if I have such strong ones about Pope Francis, and if I share his condemnation of the modernism that has seeped into the Church and is now seemingly dominant? Why don’t I also share his condemnation of the writings of Luisa Picarretta, or at least exhibit some suspicion of them, since on their face they seem “non-traditional” and to teach things irreconcilable with the traditional theological and mystical teachings of the Saints, you know, the ones traditionalists trust, such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross.
The answer is that Luisa is holy, and her teachings are holy. Period. It’s blatantly obvious. There are some difficult passages in her 36 volumes of writings, some that even appear scandalous, but that is solely due to the reader’s relatively low level of spiritual consciousness and ignorance of the nature of mystical language. If one is predisposed to see evil in them, then one will do so. This is Fr. Mawdsely’s disposition—-and he won’t change it. And this is why he does nothing but cherry pick Luisa’s writings in the most ignorant, dishonest, and tendentious manner. And this rotten disposition towards what is holy indicates the spiritual rot at the core of his brand of schismatic, reactionary traditionalism. Anyone who doesn’t see Luisa’s holiness and the beauty of her writings is either bad-willed, malformed, or just a low-level spiritual intellect. Here is all you need to know regarding the absurdity of Mawdsley’s critique, from a superb, theologically erudite and spiritually wise commentator on his YouTube channel:
@davidshikiar4937
I am learning a lot thinking this through. But I cannot be convinced. The main difficulty is that Father and the persons posting comments below reflexively assign sexual intentions and feelings to certain physical signs of affection. A kiss on the mouth is not automatically sexual in large parts of the world, nor I submit can it be taken to be so in Luisa's writings.
We are looking at three blessed innocents and interpreting their actions through the lens of disordered and sexualized passions. Suckling at the breasts is a sign of the suckler's weakness and absolute dependence upon the nursing mother. God the Son willed to place himself into this position. Luisa, it is obvious after reading merely ten pages let alone 4000, was foreign to all sexual longing. There are such persons of course, despite Freud's attempt to defile everything. One doubts she ever committed mortal sin at least after she undertook her mystical vocation.
When demons are involved normally sexual organs come into play. The female breasts are not a sexual organ, but organs of nourishment. One may treat the heart as a percussive instrument, but that is not what it is.
Luisa is also a unique figure in the history of Catholic mysticism, at least by the internal measure of her diaries, the first of 'common stock' to possess the Divine Will in a distinctive way. Much more need be said on this point. But one must allow her a specific mode of an imitatio Christi. Too much to say! Taking a handful of passages that are saturated with mystical symbolism out of the surrounding theological context and then delivering them with a somewhat growling tone and strongly condemnatory language is maximally far from a sufficient method for grasping a text's meaning. The result merely stirs up the passions and incites precipitate action while making understanding impossible. This method is the go to for those trying to scare people off the Bible. Anyway, the point is moot, as the writings have the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur (well prior to V II) and two positive affirmations (after V II). Holy Mother Church has declared repeatedly over the course of nearly one hundred years that the texts are consistent with faith and morals. Who precisely are we to contradict her on this point? If one reads the actual text it prescribes the severest species of Catholic spiritual discipline continuous with the whole tradition of total surrender of self to Christ. It takes up and intensifies Aquinas' position that more than anything else God wants each of us to sacrifice his particular will to Him. The diaries think the matter through to its bitter end, which approximated to, becomes the sweetest interior joy and peace, even when accompanied by intense pains - nay, because the advanced mystic shares in Christ's joy in doing reparation for others.
The matter requires sustained public discussion by competent Catholic theologians.
@davidshikiar4937 1 day ago (edited) Thank you for your reply. (I am replying a comment that has either disappeared or which you have removed. Since my response will be largely intelligible without the reply I was responding to I submit to your attention and that of your viewers.) We are a bit handicapped due to the format, but there is nothing but to plough ahead. I believe that the appropriate term to use in association with "inappropriate" and "irreverent" is "offensive." Those first two terms do not sit well with "repulsive." I take it that you have not intended the term in its narrow physical sense, but in its moral and affective senses. So, I cannot receive the phrase 'repulsive in their irreverence' while being able to empathize with the person communicating it. "Offensive in their irreverence" is another story. I at least get what is being conveyed by means of that second phrase and could proceed to evaluate a claim incorporating it.
The use of the word "repulsive" is appropriate in relation to certain sinful expressions of human sexuality. This is why I originally cast the issue, significantly but not exclusively, in terms of sexuality.
You go on to refer a 'light of sexual impropriety' cast by putative sado-masochistic passages. So, you admit that the issue is in fact about sexuality, reversing your initial claim that "that is not the point at all." This adequately explains your use of the word 'repulsive.' So, I now regard that matter as settled. Nonetheless, you have helpfully focused the issue on the putative sado-masochistic passages. This issue brings in the very large issue of the place of suffering in the Divine Plan. It specifically brings in the issues of the sufferings of the saints, martyrs, confessors, ordinary Christians, non-Christians, and even of animals. As a theologian you immediately see that there is not space in a YT comment section to handle this large issue adequately. For the benefit of those reading this, I will nonetheless comment briefly below.
You write: "The spiritual truths being communicated in mysticism depend upon the symbols used to communicate them . . ." No one can dispute this. I have claimed the same, but have added a second conjunct, which you without justification omit: these spiritual truths just as much depend upon the words that accompany and clarify the meanings of the symbols. It is the interaction between the words and the symbols that matters. Luisa's diaries provide much more material than one could need to explain the passages you refer to. Let me take arguably the most controversial remaining passage, the squeezing of the heart. The whole drama of Luisa’s life departs from her having voluntarily offered herself as a victim soul doing reparation for the sins of others. Thus, she voluntarily put herself in the place of sinners as a substitute who willingly absorbed the punishments, namely the pains, they had merited through their free rebellion against God. This has at least two effects that one can make out in the diaries. First, it reduced the severity of the chastisements human beings had come to merit. Second, she won through her meritorious suffering, in imitation of Christ’s and St. Mary’s own, graces of conversion and repentance for sinners. Jesus is Truth, Goodness, Beauty, and Mercy. He is also Justice Itself. Thus, in accordance with His own essential nature as Justice He regarded Luisa in her assumed and accepted role as substitutionary victim soul under the aspect of the sins of others, on account of which sins she suffered. This explains the fierceness of His aspect. It was directed towards the sins she had so to speak identified with.
There are many ways in which a person may be caused to suffer. The stigmata are a particularly horrible way and unspeakably painful (by report). Having one’s heart squeezed is a second, not obviously any more horrible than receiving the stigmata. In fact, it is probably less. But put subjective reactions and estimations to one side. If one regards the Lord giving St. Francis, St. Catherine, and St. Pio the stigmata as something holy and not sadistic, then it is arbitrary to hold that the mere squeezing of a heart is sadistic. On the contrary, the underlying logic is that Luisa was participating in God’s Glory, namely, His suffering whereby in part He conquered sin and death (spiritual and biological). [Our Lord did not merely suffer, but of course died as well.] [This reasoning will, if all goes well, continue in a further reply.]
There is a judgment of inappropriateness and I agree that it would be not merely inappropriate but sacrilegious in, say, my relating to Jesus or St. Mary in any kind of intimate way appropriate, say, to members of a family. This is true despite a Christian being an adopted child of the Father. That is the point. I am gravely damaged by past sins in a way that Luisa was not. To be more precise, there is no evidence she was – and evidence abounds in the form of decades of diary entries, the reports of those who knew her, and even the testimony of St. Pio – so there is no reason to believe that she was gravely damaged by mortal sin.
You cite the passage where she is tempted to give birth to the spawn of a demon. This is a disturbing passage and clearly meant to be such. All interactions with demons are interactions with evil beings who are, indeed, morally repulsive. They are disturbing. The important point is that she resists the temptation. It is a puzzling passage that underlines her membership in the group of those affected by original sin. By itself it does not overthrow the whole doctrine communicated in the diaries nor prove that she was undergoing decades long demonic obsession. Father, many persons have had odd encounters with demons. They prayed and the matter ended there. I helped one family seemingly rid their house of at least demonic manifestations, if not the demons themselves, simply by praying a complete Rosary with the mother.
It is manifestly clear from numerous passages in the diaries that Jesus – or the being posing as Jesus if one follows your interpretation – is singling Luisa out from the very group of those who belong to the set of those affected by original sin. He goes on at length explaining that this is how He normally proceeds, by selecting one person - Abraham, St. Mary, St. Francis, etc., - for a definite purpose in salvation history and then building on and developing from this foundation. From Abraham, we gained at first ‘natural’ Israel and later, Abraham’s seed, Jesus Himself; St. Mary of course gave birth to Jesus and thus through Him to the entire Church; St. Francis of course founded a whole order; and Luisa is the first individual to have received the gift of the Divine Will, on September 8th of 1889. Some followers of Luisa argue that St. Thérèse, St. Faustina, and St. Pio also received this gift. St. Hannibal definitely asked for it. One could propose further candidates. I take no position on this question, other than that it would have made excellent sense for the Lord to expand what He had begun.
This adequately explains why Luisa was raised to a particular station of intimacy. This intimacy was bespoken and acted on as recorded in hundreds of passages in the diaries. You have objected to kissing the Holy Face of Jesus. You would be on very solid ground if ever I, a wretched sinner, proposed to kiss the Holy Face. You yourself clearly would never do it. But neither of us is a bed-ridden virgin with a first-grade education who has voluntary taken on utterable pains for the material and spiritual benefit of millions of persons whom we have never met. @ScriptureandTraditionFrJM
It should be added that you and I do presume to place our Lord, or have our Lord placed, on the tonque and then to masticate the wafer concealing His real presence and then even to swallow Him and mix Him with our appalling digestive juices. We are commanded to do this because our Lord desires this type of intimacy with His creatures. He is entirely free to ask for and engage in other types of innocent intimacy with other of His creatures. You seem to claim that the Holy Bible contains no passage that can suggest taking any sexually inappropriate action. This is an extremely strong claim – so strong in fact that I am afraid you may come to regret having offered it.
Some persons can easily misunderstand the following: “And a certain young man followed him, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and they laid hold of him. 52 But he, casting off the linen cloth, fled from them naked.” (Mark 14: 51, DR)
Misunderstanding is beyond a mere possibility. Crowleyan Satanists see a homosexual ritual in this passage. We can be assured on the basis of faith that there is no such ritual here. One may read the symbolism in a manner that brings out something about the Faith, just as I read the symbolism in Luisa’s diaries to bring out its teaching (which is put forward as in effect following logically from what is already present in the deposit of faith. That is a big claim that would require lengthy justification. The only thing to do is to submit the question to exact scrutiny and follow wherever evidence, logic, and faith lead).
You claimed that all suggestions of impropriety are absent even from the Old Testament. As a counter-example take Numbers 3:7: “They warred with the Midianites . . . they killed all the men . . . [Moses said] “have you left alive all the women even those who tempted the Israelites to transgress the Law? Therefore, kill every male among the little ones and every woman who has known a man intimately and keep for yourselves the young girls who have not known a man intimately.” Enemies of God can read this as referring to an exhortation to engage in pedophilia. Whereas the adult women had committed adultery with some of the Israelites, the girls are all virgins, so one cannot transgress the Law in having intercourse with them. This is how a Dawkins or Hitchens might read this passage.
Consider this passage from Proverbs [5:18-19, DR]: “Let thy vein be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of thy youth: [19] Let her be thy dearest hind, and most agreeable fawn: let her breasts inebriate thee at all times; be thou delighted continually with her love.” Many persons will misunderstand the exhortation concerning how a husband should regard his wife’s breasts. While they are here proposed as ornaments filling out her beauty, many persons will read this passage erotically.
Protestants have used the following passage to conclude something one ought never to think at all about the Holy Virgin: “And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” (Mt. 1:25, DR) The sense they assign to this passage is plain, but Douay Rheims cites St. Jerome explaining that the Greek term for until (eōs) translates a Hebrew term that in fact refers to a period up to and beyond a certain point in time. “The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool.” (Ps. 109:1, DR) Jesus will not retire from His position at the right hand of the Father after total victory.
You did not respond to the observation that the [first nineteen volumes of the] diaries have already received the nihil obstat and the imprimatur and that all thirty-six volumes have received positive judgments from theologians in the Dicastery for the Causes of the Saints. Mother Gabrielle Marie claims that she was told that one of these theologians was then Cardinal Ratzinger.
You find suggestions of sexual impropriety and sadomasochism in Luisa’s diaries. You also claim that they are inspired by the Devil. You further claim that there is a ripe possibility someone will use them to justify founding – let’s just say it – a sex cult. You must look at the actual persons who are leading the Divine Will movement and ask whether you really believe that any of these persons are aiming at, or susceptible to, founding a sex cult. I find it, frankly, impossible to take seriously. If I follow you, your advice to the lay faithful is not to read the diaries, else they may open themselves to demonic obsession and the demons, having gained entry, can then do them great harm. This might involve, again, entering, by stages perhaps, into a sex cult, but will at minimum involve adopting heretical positions which, once subscribed to will constitute mortal sin and lead one to damnation. You overlook, again, that the lay faithful have been cleared here by Holy Mother Church, which has declared the diaries to be wholly consistent with faith and morals. Many priests and nuns have sadly been guilty of sexual impropriety over the history of the Church. The advice to give the faithful is, clearly, whether a person with a religious vocation practices the Divine Will devotion or does not practice the devotion, to report clear cases of sexual impropriety by priests, deacons, and religious to their local bishop. Thank you for reading this and for your service to and love for our Lord, our Lady, and Holy Mother Church. I am particularly appreciative of your treatment of Zionism, Israel, and Christian Zionism.
I know Luisa and her writings are legit not only because the post-Vatican II Church has told me, and looking at all the evidence I have every reason to trust her in this case (and yes, even though the Church is not infallible in this area), but because her orthodoxy and holiness and that of her writings are manifest and irrefutable. But why doesn’t Fr. Mawdsley agree with me?
But not only does he not agree with me, he also has the complete opposite view. He doesn’t just have some concerns due to what seem to be unorthodox teachings and morally unsuitable language, concerns about which he is open to discussing to see if they are justified. No, he is in outright condemnation of her writings as diabolical—along with the implied judgment that she was not at all holy—after all, how could a holy person think that Jesus Christ is the author of doctrines so clearly from Satan? Low spiritual IQ people don’t get to be Servants of God.
Why isn’t Father Mawdsley like me, suspicious of post-Vatican II official judgments of holiness—St. Paul VI, really?!—while also seeing the obvious holiness of Luisa’s life and writings? It’s because he can’t or won’t see what is right in front of his spiritual eyes. I suspect it has a lot to do with some desire overruling his reason and spiritual discernment, perhaps the desire for a secure and infallible paradigm of thought and judgment, impervious to any error, ambiguity, or doubt, to help him negotiate the insanity of the present times. I’d like to have that too! But there is a cost to such a desire when it becomes fanatical. Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting such a paradigm per se, and Catholics actually have this in the infallible Magisterium, when it comes to Catholic dogma. And such a paradigm is desirable now more than ever before due to the post-Vatican II confusion of which both Fr. Mawdsely and I are very aware. But it is the desire for an absolute paradigm of ideological truth, over a desire to surrender to the absolute truth itself as it manifests itself experientially to us moment by moment—irreducible to any and breaking apart all paradigms—that is the main problem, and it is this that will make one a sitting duck for the Antichrist, against which no intellectual paradigm will offer any defense, and whose arrival is most probably very imminent.
What was the Pharisees’ paradigm? Whatever it was, it made them hate and desire to destroy Jesus and persecute His followers. We are the God-appointed leaders of the Jews! Our paradigm is the very Revelation of God, for we are and must be the epitome of loyalty, piety, courage, and devotion to God! Well, yes, it was and they were—if Jesus was only a human being. If he was God, however, then their virtues become vices, and the “Jews,” as St. John calls those Hebrews who rejected Jesus, become, not God’s Bride, but the devil’s prostitute, not the Church of Yahweh, but the “synagogue of Satan.” Saul was a prisoner to such a paradigm, and nothing but an unforeseen, undesired-indeed, violent encounter with who, to his diseased spirit and intellect, was the radically other, a Jewish man claiming to be God, could liberate him. If Saul had been allowed to remain in the isolated, blinded paradigm of the “Jewishdom” of his day, the way in which some traditional Catholics, such as Fr. Mawdsley, would like to remain in the isolating “Christendoms” of their neuroses, fears, and gnostic certainties, his blindness would never have been revealed to him, and he would never have become St. Paul, the apostle to the Jewish other, the Gentile. Christ Himself had to break Saul out of his idolatrous paradigm, which was indeed not one of authentic Mosaic Judaism but a rabbinical, proto-Talmudic fanaticism of purely human origin. This had to occur violently against his will, but we have the chance to invite Christ freely into our minds, by inviting the salvific “others”—ones that we would rather not meet— into our intimacy as they are providentially “forced” upon us by Our Lord in our modern pluralistic world—as neighbors, or as bedridden, illiterate, nineteenth-century nobodys through which Jesus has given the world the greatest grace since the Incarnation, the grace of Living in the Divine Will.
We need this gift, because as the Antichrist approaches, prepared for by the apotheosis of his Great Reset worldly minions of which we have had a foretaste in the totalitarian plandemic, on pause for now by about to replay at a much higher speed and volume, he will rule over and exploit and annihilate all our paltry paradigms. We will all be in the position of the Apostles when the Truth Incarnate asked them each personally: “Who do you say that I am?” At that moment, no paradigm will do, no out-of-context proof-texting and quote-mining to prove your judgment will suffice, and no tribal in-house ideology, no matter how “traditional,” will help you. Let us all prepare ourselves now for that moment by destroying our idols and relativizing our paradigms, with the knowledge that when it all comes down, we are all personally responsible for recognizing, loving, and obeying Truth, and although we are tradition-constituted rational animals who can only make rational judgments within and by the help of inherited and chosen paradigms of thought, we are required and enabled ultimately to transcend these paradigms by God Himself, who wants to know whom we really love at the core of our hearts, a place beyond any paradigm, where God and Reality meet us intimately and immediately. Let us prepare for this meeting, for it is coming soon.
And one of the best ways to prepare for it is to practice Living in the Divine Will as taught by the Servant of God Luisa Picarretta. And as you do so, pray for Father James Mawdsley, who, like the Devil, has put himself in a spiritual state where he calls what is good and holy, evil and diabolical, and he is not listening to fellow Catholics who are trying to help him by showing him this with clear evidence. He needs our prayers.
No, there is nothing sexual at all.
There are sexual overtones in female Catholic mysticism for sure. The fact that this priest describes them as "a scream from hell" suggest he has not only a blind spot , but a real antipathy, towards female sexuality. He sounds immature, like someone who thinks breastfeeding is dirty.